PROPOSAL 1
A REFERENDUM ON PUBLIC ACT 4 OF 2011 -
THE EMERGENCY MANAGER LAW

Public Act 4 of 2011 would:

· Establish criteria to assess the financial condition of local government units, including school districts.

· Authorize Governor to appoint an emergency manager (EM) upon state finding of a financial emergency, and allow the EM to act in place of local government officials.

· Require EM to develop financial and operating plans, which may include modification or termination of contracts, reorganization of government, and determination of expenditures, services, and use of assets until the emergency is resolved.

· Alternatively, authorize state-appointed review team to enter into a local government approved consent decree.

PROPOSAL 12-2
A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE STATE CONSTITUTION
REGARDING COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

This proposal would:

· Grant public and private employees the constitutional right to organize and bargain collectively through labor unions.

· Invalidate existing or future state or local laws that limit the ability to join unions and bargain collectively, and to negotiate and enforce collective bargaining agreements, including employees' financial support of their labor unions. Laws may be enacted to prohibit public employees from striking.

· Override state laws that regulate hours and conditions of employment to the extent that those laws conflict with collective bargaining agreements.

· Define "employer" as a person or entity employing one or more employees.

PROPOSAL 12-3
A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE STATE CONSTITUTION
TO ESTABLISH A STANDARD FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY

This proposal would:

· Require electric utilities to provide at least 25% of their annual retail sales of electricity from renewable energy sources, which are wind, solar, biomass, and hydropower, by 2025.

· Limit to not more than 1% per year electric utility rate increases charged to consumers only to achieve compliance with the renewable energy standard.

· Allow annual extensions of the deadline to meet the 25% standard in order to prevent rate increases over the 1% limit.

· Require the legislature to enact additional laws to encourage the use of Michigan made equipment and employment of Michigan residents.

PROPOSAL 12-4
A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE STATE CONSTITUTION
TO ESTABLISH THE MICHIGAN QUALITY HOME CARE COUNCIL
AND PROVIDE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
FOR IN-HOME CARE WORKERS

This proposal would:

· Allow in-home care workers to bargain collectively with the Michigan Quality Home Care Council (MQHCC). Continue the current exclusive representative of in-home care workers until modified in accordance with labor laws.

· Require MQHCC to provide training for in-home care workers, create a registry of workers who pass background checks, and provide financial services to patients to manage the cost of in-home care.

· Preserve patients' rights to hire in-home care workers who are not referred from the MQHCC registry who are bargaining unit members.

· Authorize the MQHCC to set minimum compensation standards and terms and conditions of employment.

PROPOSAL 12-5
A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE STATE CONSTITUTION
TO LIMIT THE ENACTMENT OF NEW TAXES BY STATE GOVERNMENT

This proposal would:

Require a 2/3 majority vote of the State House and the State Senate, or a statewide vote of the people at a November election, in order for the State of Michigan to impose new or additional taxes on taxpayers or expand the base of taxation or increasing the rate of taxation.

This section shall in no way be construed to limit or modify tax limitations otherwise created in this Constitution.

Should this proposal be approved?

PROPOSAL 12-6
A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE STATE CONSTITUTION
REGARDING CONSTRUCTION OF
INTERNATIONAL BRIDGES AND TUNNELS

This proposal would:

· Require the approval of a majority of voters at a statewide election and in each municipality where "new international bridges or tunnels for motor vehicles" are to be located before the State of Michigan may expend state funds or resources for acquiring land, designing, soliciting bids for, constructing, financing, or promoting new international bridges or tunnels.

· Create a definition of "new international bridges or tunnels for motor vehicles" that means, "any bridge or tunnel which is not open to the public and serving traffic as of January 1, 2012."

1. unsure...
2. fuck no.
3. This may be the WORST proposal EVER since I've been of voting age. HELL NO
4. Union proposal... NO.
5. Makes sense to me, I'm voting yes.
6. I see both sides of this, voting yes because I don't think we need a new bridge.

1. Yes, if an EM is needed, give them the power to do what is needed.
2. No, I do not want union contracts to override state law.
3. No, even if this was a good idea it should not be added to the state constitution.
4. No, we shouldn't force the union on people.
5. No, This would place to much of a restriction on the state legislature to do it's job of managing the states finances.
6. No, no other state highway construction projects require a state wide vote, why single out international bridges and tunnels?

1. Yes. Cities that repeatedly fail to balance their budget need intervention
2. No.
3. No. This would increase our rates. If there is a way to offer renewable power at an affordable cost, the private sector will find it.
4. No
5. Yes. I believe this will cause the governments to reform instead of tax their way out
6. No.

1. unsure...
2. fuck no.
3. This may be the WORST proposal EVER since I've been of voting age. HELL NO
4. Union proposal... NO.
5. Makes sense to me, I'm voting yes.
6. I see both sides of this, voting yes because I don't think we need a new bridge.

I'm surprised you're in the Kodiak camp on #6. Nothing like one guy using the constitution of the state to protect his business.

1. Yes, if an EM is needed, give them the power to do what is needed.
2. No, I do not want union contracts to override state law.
3. No, even if this was a good idea it should not be added to the state constitution.
4. No, we shouldn't force the union on people.
5. No, This would place to much of a restriction on the state legislature to do it's job of managing the states finances.
6. No, no other state highway construction projects require a state wide vote, why single out international bridges and tunnels?

Well, I'm not sure Bruce and I agree on everything but this time we do.

__________________
GLFWDA member since 1979.
Member Southern Michigan Rock Crawlers.

1. Yes, if an EM is needed, give them the power to do what is needed.
2. No, I do not want union contracts to override state law.
3. No, even if this was a good idea it should not be added to the state constitution.
4. No, we shouldn't force the union on people.
5. No, This would place to much of a restriction on the state legislature to do it's job of managing the states finances.
6. No, no other state highway construction projects require a state wide vote, why single out international bridges and tunnels?

Quote:

Originally Posted by kickstand

1. Yes
2. No
3. No
4. No
5. No
6. No

Fuck.. there is an agreement between Brewmann AND Kickstand AND Whiterhino. Throw in LX4whatever his name is and the world may stop spinning.

The only one I have a strong opinion about (so far) is Prop 6. I'm voting "No".

More than 2,000 trucks from Chrysler and Ford cross the bridge each day (plus about 200 from GM). If something were to happen and the bridge were shut down for a few days, that could be disastrous for the Big 3. (Plus the impact to the companies sending the other 5,500 trucks across each day)

The Blue Water Bridge is already at capacity so re-routing traffic up there for an extended period of time is not a viable solution.

This isn't just a Detroit or Michigan issue - $63 billion in trade cross the current bridge each year originating from Ohio, Indiana, and Kentucky.

When the Ambassador Bridge renewed their bonds in 2009 even they projected significant growth in traffic through 2025. So either they are lying in their ads against for Prop 6 or they lied to their investors.

Nobody has yet to show anywhere how the new bridge will cost Michigan taxpayers any money. Yes, U.S. tax payers will need to build the customs plaza and staff that, but that will come out of money already marked for customs and transportation upgrades, is spread out across all U.S. taxpayers, and would be spent on those types of projects regardless so we may as well work to get that spending done here than let it go to another proposed crossing on the Niagara Peninsula.

Michigan will be able to leverage Canada's expenditure on the bridge project into $2.2 billion dollars of extra road funding for the state from the federal government through matching funds. Again, these are funds that would be spent somewhere in the U.S. so lets get them here where infrastructure upgrades are badly needed.

The current bridge is a security concern - because of space restrictions, in-depth secondary screenings of large trucks on the American side must be done about 7 miles south of the bridge and 5 miles away on the Canadian side. If somebody did have some bad intentions, they could have ample time and opportunity while traveling through Detroit or Windsor.

I don't think decisions on infrastructure should really come down to a vote of the public. This is one area where the professionals who live and breath transportation engineering, planning, logistics, etc. should be making the decisions.

If the the Blue Water Bridges or Ambassador Bridge were to suddenly collapse, because of the way Prop 6 is worded it would require a lengthy ballot initiative to get the ball rolling on rebuilding the old bridges. "Bridges" as defined in the proposal also includes any rail crossings or tunnels; and because of more badly worded language and ambiguity could also be used to hold up bridge construction that is not crossing an international border.

There is currently a plan to widen the rail tunnel in Detroit to accommodate double-stack cars, this proposal could put a halt to that as well.

Legally, it is undetermined whether or not Prop 6 would even have an effect on the new proposed bridge across the Detroit River because the inter-local agreement has already been signed and the presidential permit already granted but you better believe that if Prop 6 does pass, Matty Moroun will waste countless more taxpayer dollars fighting it in court (he has already won exactly 0 of the lawsuits he has brought to try and stop it).